Costco Lawsuits 2026: Lululemon Dupes, Rotisserie Chicken, Tariffs and Tequila Claims Explained

Searches for “lululemon costco lawsuit” have surged alongside broader consumer interest in Costco-related litigation, reflecting shopper curiosity about several unrelated legal actions now pending against the warehouse retailer. This article provides a consolidated, plain-language roundup of four currently active cases involving Costco Wholesale Corp.: an intellectual-property dispute brought by Lululemon over allegedly copied apparel, two separate rotisserie chicken lawsuits, a proposed class action over tariff-related pricing, and a mislabeling suit concerning Kirkland Signature tequila.

A note on how this article is organized: Because litigation involves claims that have not been proven in court, this article clearly distinguishes between allegations made in legal filings and confirmed facts such as filing dates, docket numbers, and court names. Statements describing what a plaintiff or complaint claims are marked as such throughout; nothing here should be read as a finding of liability or wrongdoing by Costco.

Costco Lawsuits at a Glance

The table below summarizes the current posture of all four cases discussed in this article. Litigation status can change quickly; readers should verify the current docket before relying on any status listed here.

The Lululemon v. Costco Dupe Lawsuit – What It Alleges

The case, captioned Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 2:25-cv-05864, was filed on June 27, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. According to the complaint, Costco sold apparel that copies the trade dress, trademarks, and patented design features of several Lululemon products, and the lawsuit asserts claims for trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, patent infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and violations of the California Unfair Business Practices Act.

Important distinction: This is an intellectual-property lawsuit brought by a competitor, Lululemon, against Costco—it is not a consumer class action. Shoppers who purchased the Costco items named in the suit are not parties to the case and are not automatically eligible for any compensation. Any consumer-facing claims process would require a separate class action, which has not been filed in connection with this dispute.

Which Costco Products Does Lululemon Say Are Copies?

The complaint identifies three specific Costco products and compares them to Lululemon originals, according to court filings:

• The Danskin Half-Zip Pullover, priced around $8, which the complaint alleges mimics Lululemon’s Scuba pullover (retailing near $118).
• The Jockey Ladies Yoga Jacket / Spyder Women’s Yoga Jacket, priced around $22, which the complaint alleges mimics Lululemon’s Define jacket (retailing near $128).
• The Kirkland 5 Pocket Performance Pant, priced around $10, which the complaint alleges mimics Lululemon’s ABC Pant (retailing near $128).

Lululemon is seeking monetary damages tied to alleged lost profits and reputational harm, according to the complaint. As of this writing, no court ruling or settlement in the case has been publicly confirmed, and the litigation remains in its early stages. For ongoing docket updates, NBC News has reported on the filing, and case trackers such as ClassAction.org’s Costco coverage continue to monitor developments.

Costco Rotisserie Chicken Lawsuits – Two Separate Cases Explained

Costco’s popular $4.99 rotisserie chicken is currently the subject of two distinct lawsuits, filed by different plaintiffs, in different courts, under different legal theories. They should not be confused with one another.

The ‘No Preservatives’ False Advertising Suit

Filed January 22, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by plaintiffs Bianca Johnston and Anastasia Chernov, this suit alleges that Costco marketed its Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken as containing “no preservatives” while the ingredient list allegedly included sodium phosphate and carrageenan. According to court filings, Costco has since removed the “no preservatives” signage referenced in the complaint. Costco has filed a motion to dismiss, and no ruling has been confirmed as of this writing.

The Salmonella Contamination Suit

The second case, Lisa Taylor v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 2:26-cv-00528, was filed February 12, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. According to the complaint, Costco’s supplier, the Lincoln Premium Poultry plant in Fremont, Nebraska, received the USDA’s lowest food-safety rating (Category 3) in approximately 92% of reporting periods since 2019. The lawsuit asserts claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, along with unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty theories.

Court filings show Costco filed a motion to dismiss on April 14, 2026, arguing that the chicken is fully cooked — a process that kills salmonella bacteria — and that the named plaintiff did not allege she became ill after eating the product. Reporting at the time suggested a ruling could arrive around May 11, 2026, but readers should independently verify the current docket status, as this litigation remains fluid. Neither chicken case has reached class certification or produced a settlement, and no claims process currently exists for either matter.

The Costco Tariffs Lawsuit – What Changed After the Supreme Court Ruling

To understand this case, it helps to understand the underlying legal background. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is a federal law that has, at times, been used as a basis for imposing tariffs on imported goods. On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, a decision that invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority.

Following that ruling, a proposed class action was filed alleging that Costco passed the cost of these now-invalidated tariffs on to consumers through higher retail prices before the tariffs were struck down, according to the complaint. The suit cites consumer-protection statutes in multiple states, including Illinois, New York, California, Florida, Washington, New Jersey, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. This is a pricing and consumer-protection theory, distinct from a product-safety claim, and it remains in its early stages with no class certified. This article does not offer tax or legal guidance on IEEPA tariffs generally; readers with specific questions should review reporting on the case or consult a qualified attorney.

The Kirkland Signature Tequila Lawsuit – Is It Really 100% Agave?

The lead case, brought by plaintiff Ariel Glazer, was filed October 31, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A related action, brought by the law firm Hagens Berman, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington before Judge Kymberly K. Evanson.

According to the complaints, laboratory testing — including nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and carbon isotope analysis — allegedly shows that Kirkland Signature tequila, labeled “100% DE AGAVE” or “100% AGAVE AZUL,” contains non-agave sugars, such as cane sugar, and corn-derived ethanol, contrary to the label. Costco filed a motion to dismiss the Washington action on April 21, 2026, with a plaintiffs’ opposition reportedly due June 2, 2026; current briefing status should be confirmed independently. No class has been certified and no settlement has been reached in either the Florida or Washington proceedings. Additional background is available via Hagens Berman’s case page.

Is There a Costco Class Action Settlement Right Now?

As of this writing, none of the four cases discussed in this article has resulted in a confirmed settlement, and no class has been certified in any of them. Readers searching for a “costco lawsuit claim” form should be aware that no claims process currently exists for these matters. Because litigation status changes frequently, readers are encouraged to check primary sources, such as court dockets or reputable case trackers, before assuming any payout is available.

What Should Costco Shoppers Do Right Now?

None of the four cases currently offers a consumer claims process, but shoppers who want to stay informed or protect their interests can take the following steps:

• Keep receipts or Costco membership purchase records for rotisserie chicken, apparel items named in the Lululemon suit, or Kirkland Signature tequila, in case a consumer class action is certified later.
• Monitor case trackers and reputable legal news sources rather than relying on social media summaries, since litigation details change quickly.
• Report any adverse health reaction believed to be linked to a Costco food product to a healthcare provider and, where appropriate, to the FDA or USDA.
• Avoid third-party websites that request payment or personal financial information in exchange for “joining” a lawsuit that has no active claims process.
• Consult a licensed attorney directly for guidance specific to an individual purchase, injury, or potential claim.

Key Takeaways

• Four separate, unrelated legal actions are currently pending against Costco Wholesale Corp., covering apparel design, food labeling and safety, tariff pricing, and tequila labeling.
• The Lululemon suit is a trademark and trade dress case brought by a competitor — not a consumer class action — so Costco shoppers are not automatically entitled to compensation.
• The two rotisserie chicken lawsuits involve different plaintiffs, different courts, and different legal theories (false advertising versus food-safety and consumer protection claims).
• The tariffs class action followed the Supreme Court’s February 2026 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which invalidated certain IEEPA-based tariffs.
• The Kirkland Signature tequila suit relies on laboratory testing that allegedly shows non-agave ingredients, contrary to the product’s labeling claims.
• No settlement or class certification has been confirmed in any of the four cases as of this writing; litigation status should be independently verified.

Frequently Asked Questions

Legal Disclaimer

This article was published on July 6, 2026, and reflects publicly available court filings and news reporting as of that date. Litigation described above is ongoing, and case status, including motions, rulings, class certification, and settlements, may have changed since publication. This article is provided for general informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a licensed attorney regarding any specific legal matter. USA Legal Journal makes no representation regarding the outcome of any pending litigation discussed here.